Good points. I hadn't considered that the shutter itself might be off. I'm definitely going to replace the developer, and I think I'll order some smaller bottles so it's hopefully keep better.
Printable View
Good points. I hadn't considered that the shutter itself might be off. I'm definitely going to replace the developer, and I think I'll order some smaller bottles so it's hopefully keep better.
Hummm. you're using a camera more than 25 years old and you wonder if the film is bad. My 1951 Studebaker won't start. I wonder if it sufferes from Climate Change. I have over 40 old film cameras and they are....well...old. I have an Olympus with a zoom lens that will not zoom. Every photo I take is wide angle. I have an original Nikon F that I dropped in 1974 and has not worked since. And I have a Brownie Reflex from about 1941 that works perfectly and takes pretty darn good photographs. Never had a bad roll of film although I've only been taking pix since 1947.
Lots of possibilities here.
I would really encourage you to track down the exact cause of this for one (ancillary) reason: There are many in this forum who strive to get the monster grain that you accidentally managed to get. If you figure out how to repeat this (film/exposure/development, etc.), there will be many grateful photographers out there in your debt!
I, for one, like no grain at all, but appreciate the gritty look in others' work.
As for diagnosing your problem; do check your shutter and meter to find out if overexposure is really a factor. If not, then overdevelopment looks likely.
However, if you have underdeveloped negs and are increasing contrast while scanning, that may be a large factor in the grain. Does an analogue print show this grain? If so, then it's not a scanning artifact.
Good luck,
Doremus
www.DoremusScudder.com
Seriously? Did my question merit that level of snarkiness? I asked an honest question about a problem and you feel the need to belittle me with your supposed superiority? I see you're certainly doing your part to advocate film usage; I'm sure all the young whippersnappers want to be just like you. Yes sir.
Hmm… I didn't sense any degree of snarkiness. :( What I did sense was a serious attempt to help you determine what caused your problem. Looking at the photo you offered, I could definitely see a "been there, done that" problem which I have also encountered. I tried using Photoshop to correct the underexposure and really kicked up the grain. I was using Fomapan 100. It is a somewhat crappy film with a horrid curling problem (I'm using Fomapan 120), developed in HC-110 dilution B. To be honest, I thought the photo was pretty cool, the grain gave it some character.
m
Don't take it to heart In a very large forum this is liable to happen unfortunately. Maybe the poster in question didn't appreciate that until this film the camera had been delivering good results so while cameras can and do go wrong all of a sudden this seems unlikelyQuote:
Originally Posted by lancekingphoto
However check out the helpful replies on shutter and other issues and do try a print. This won't be the first time that what the scanner shows doesn't translate into what a print will look like.
Best of luck
pentaxuser
Not from most people, pentaxuser. Sorry if it it was misdirected (I should have quoted the original comment.) This is what I was responding to:
"Hummm. you're using a camera more than 25 years old and you wonder if the film is bad. My 1951 Studebaker won't start. I wonder if it sufferes from Climate Change. I have over 40 old film cameras and they are....well...old. I have an Olympus with a zoom lens that will not zoom. Every photo I take is wide angle. I have an original Nikon F that I dropped in 1974 and has not worked since. And I have a Brownie Reflex from about 1941 that works perfectly and takes pretty darn good photographs. Never had a bad roll of film although I've only been taking pix since 1947. "
Not from you or most other people (see my other reply). I do appreciate the many helpful responses I received. And thanks for the feedback on the photo. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by mhcfires
Hard to imagine this time of year, but could the D-76 have been warm?
I can answer that one definitively: no. I'm careful to use it at 68 degrees F.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoopla